Using the 4+ victims definition, what is the per-capita mass shooting rate in the US versus Australia (1995–2025)?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Using the commonly cited “4+ victims” definition (Gun Violence Archive style) the United States records hundreds of incidents per year — sources cite roughly 391 mass shootings in 2025 as of Dec. 14 and long-running estimates of roughly 400–650 annually — while Australia has had very few mass shootings since its 1996 reforms and until the December 2025 Bondi Beach attack was described as having “virtually none” or “zero or one per year on average” [1] [2] [3] [4]. Exact per-capita rates for 1995–2025 are not published in the provided material; available sources give annual counts and qualitative comparisons rather than a compiled 1995–2025 per-capita calculation [1] [2] [3].
1. What the headline numbers in reporting actually say
Recent reporting contrasts the U.S.’s very large annual tallies — “roughly 400–650 mass shootings annually” in some analyses and “391 mass shootings verified in the U.S. in 2025 as of December 14” in others — with Australia’s post‑1996 record of very few mass shootings, described as “virtually none” and “zero or one per year on average” since Port Arthur [2] [1] [3] [4]. These are annual counts or snapshots rather than a straight aggregated rate for the 1995–2025 period in per‑capita terms [1] [2].
2. Why simple per‑capita comparisons are tempting — and risky
Journalists and advocates often cite per‑capita contrasts to make policy points: Forbes and other outlets emphasize extremely low Australian gun‑murder rates versus the U.S. [1] [5]. But the definition used matters: the Gun Violence Archive count (4+ shot victims, injured or killed) produces hundreds of incidents in the U.S. each year and will inflate totals relative to narrower definitions that require multiple deaths or exclude gang‑related shootings [6]. The sources note that definitions and inclusion rules vary and materially change counts [6] [7].
3. How definitions change the picture
The US “4+ shot” definition includes incidents where four or more people are shot (not necessarily killed) and typically excludes the shooter; that broad standard produces very large counts, including many episodes tied to disputes or gang violence, according to critics [6]. Australian lists and academic treatments sometimes use casualty thresholds that include injured victims and differ on whether to count perpetrator casualties, further complicating cross‑national tallies [7]. Any per‑capita rate must use the same definition across countries to be meaningful [6] [7].
4. What the sources say about long‑term trends (1996 onward)
Multiple sources attribute Australia’s long post‑Port Arthur decline in mass‑shooting incidence to the National Firearms Agreement and a large weapons buyback, noting a sharp fall in mass shootings and firearm homicides afterward [5] [8] [3]. Reporting frames Australia as having been an outlier of low mass‑shooting frequency until the Bondi Beach attack in December 2025 [8] [3] [4].
5. Missing pieces needed to compute a 1995–2025 per‑capita rate
The provided links do not supply a compiled count of mass shootings in each country for every year 1995–2025 nor consistent population denominators across the period, so I cannot compute an exact per‑capita rate from these sources alone. The sources give annual snapshots and qualitative comparisons (e.g., “391 in 2025,” “virtually none” in Australia after 1996) but not the full 31‑year tabulation needed to produce an accurate 1995–2025 per‑100,000‑people rate [1] [2] [3] [5].
6. What you would need to produce the requested per‑capita comparison
To create a defensible 1995–2025 per‑capita comparison under the “4+ victims” rule you need: (a) a consistent incident list for both countries using the same inclusion rules for 1995–2025 (Gun Violence Archive or equivalent applied to both), (b) annual population estimates to convert counts to per‑100,000 rates, and (c) a decision about whether to include injured victims and how to treat perpetrator casualties — all elements highlighted as variable in the sources [6] [7].
7. Competing interpretations and implicit agendas in coverage
Advocates for stricter gun policy highlight the stark difference in mass‑shooting frequency between the U.S. and Australia to argue that Australia’s 1996 reforms reduced large shootings [5] [8]. Critics point to definitional inflation in U.S. tallies (counting any 4+ shot incident including gang fights) to argue the comparison overstates differences [6]. Both perspectives appear in the provided reporting; each depends heavily on which incidents are counted [6] [5].
8. Bottom line for readers
Available sources show a very large gap in reported annual mass‑shooting counts in recent years and strong evidence that Australia’s post‑1996 record was far lower than U.S. annual tallies — but the materials provided do not contain a complete, consistent 1995–2025 incident dataset or per‑capita calculation using the 4+ definition. To answer your original question numerically, one must standardize definitions and compile national incident and population data year by year (not found in current reporting) [1] [2] [6] [7].